Page:Instead of a Book, Tucker.djvu/170

to that which we have put forward hitherto. At the same time, we are
not so absolutely convinced of its soundness as to close our eyes to the
fact that there may be a good deal said on the other side. The doctrine
of conspiracy enters in. That which may not be illegal or even wrong in
one person becomes both illegal and morally wrong in a crowd of persons.—Jus.

Liberty would be unfair to Jus if it should not present
the evidence of that journal's fairness by printing its handsome
acknowledgment of error regarding boycotting. Jus still
thinks, however, that something may be said on the other side,
and declares that there are some things that one person may
rightfully do which become illegal and immoral when done by
a crowd. I should like to have Jus give an instance. There
are some invasive acts or threats which cannot be executed by
individuals, but require crowds—or conspiracies, if you will—for
their accomplishment. But the guilt still arises from the
invasive character of the act, and not from the fact of
conspiracy. No individual has a right to do any act which is
invasive, but any number of individuals may rightfully
"conspire" to commit any act which is non-invasive. Jus
acknowledges the force of Liberty's argument that A may as
properly boycott C as B. Further consideration, I think, will
compel it to acknowledge that A and B combined may as
properly boycott C as may A alone or B alone.

A SPIRIT MORE EVIL THAN ALCOHOL.

[Liberty, August 13, 1887.]

The authority of learning, the tyranny of science, which
Bakounine foresaw, deprecated, and denounced, never found
blunter expression than in an article by T. B. Wakeman in
the August number of the Freethinkers' Magazine in which
the writer endeavors to prove, on scientific grounds alone,
that alcohol is an unmitigated evil, a poison that ought never
to be taken into the human system. My knowledge of chemistry
and physiology is too limited to enable me to judge of
the scientific soundness of the attempted demonstration; but
I do know that it is admirably well written, wonderfully
attractive, powerfully plausible, important if true, and
therefore worthy of answer by those who alone are competent to
answer it if it can be answered. Such an answer I hope to